Postcontrast T1 Mapping for Differential Diagnosis of Recurrence and Radionecrosis after Gamma Knife Radiosurgery for Brain Metastasis

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Patel TR,
   3. Knisely JP,
   4. Chiang VL

   . Management of brain metastases: surgery, radiation, or both? Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2012;26:933–47 doi:10.1016/j.hoc.2012.04.008 pmid:22794291

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Pinkham MB,
   3. Whitfield GA,
   4. Brada M

   . New developments in intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy for metastases. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2015;27:316–23 doi:10.1016/j.clon.2015.01.007 pmid:25662094

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Mahajan A,
   3. Ahmed S,
   4. McAleer MF, et al

   . Post-operative stereotactic radiosurgery versus observation for completely resected brain metastases: a single-centre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1040–48 doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30414-X pmid:28687375

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Curnes JT,
   3. Laster DW,
   4. Ball MR, et al

   . MRI of radiation injury to the brain. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1986;147:119–24 doi:10.2214/ajr.147.1.119 pmid:3487203

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   2. Lyubimova N,
   3. Hopewell JW

   . Experimental evidence to support the hypothesis that damage to vascular endothelium plays the primary role in the development of late radiation-induced CNS injury. Br J Radiol 2004;77:488–92 doi:10.1259/bjr/15169876 pmid:15151969

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Stockham AL,
   3. Tievsky AL,
   4. Koyfman SA, et al

   . Conventional MRI does not reliably distinguish radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence after stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neurooncol 2012;109:149–58 doi:10.1007/s11060-012-0881-9 pmid:22638727

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Brandsma D,
   3. Stalpers L,
   4. Taal W, et al

   . Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:453–61 doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70125-6 pmid:18452856

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   2. Verma N,
   3. Cowperthwaite MC,
   4. Burnett MG, et al

   . Differentiating tumor recurrence from treatment necrosis: a review of neuro-oncologic imaging strategies. Neuro Oncol 2013;15:515–34 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nos307 pmid:23325863

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Dhermain FG,
   3. Hau P,
   4. Lanfermann H, et al

   . Advanced MRI and PET imaging for assessment of treatment response in patients with gliomas. Lancet Neurol 2010;9:906–20 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(10)70181-2 pmid:20705518

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    2. Barajas RF,
    3. Chang JS,
    4. Sneed PK, et al

    . Distinguishing recurrent intra-axial metastatic tumor from radiation necrosis following gamma knife radiosurgery using dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:367–72 pmid:19022867

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    2. Mitsuya K,
    3. Nakasu Y,
    4. Horiguchi S, et al

    . Perfusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging to distinguish the recurrence of metastatic brain tumors from radiation necrosis after stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neurooncol 2010;99:81–88 doi:10.1007/s11060-009-0106-z pmid:20058049

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Mills SJ,
    3. Soh C,
    4. O'Connor JP, et al

    . Enhancing fraction in glioma and its relationship to the tumoral vascular microenvironment: a dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:726–31 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1925 pmid:20019100

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. Larsen VA,
    3. Simonsen HJ,
    4. Law I, et al

    . Evaluation of dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted perfusion MRI in the differentiation of tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis. Neuroradiology 2013;55:361–69 doi:10.1007/s00234-012-1127-4 pmid:23262559

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Koh MJ,
    3. Kim HS,
    4. Choi CG, et al

    . Which is the best advanced MR imaging protocol for predicting recurrent metastatic brain tumor following gamma-knife radiosurgery: focused on perfusion method. Neuroradiology 2015;57:367–76 doi:10.1007/s00234-015-1485-9 pmid:25592446

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Fugo KR,
    3. Lawson MA,
    4. Lee BJ

    . Ibotenic acid lesions reduce noradrenergic activation in ventromedial hypothalamus during hypoglycemia. Brain Res 2006;1111:105–10 doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.085 pmid:16905122

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. Biousse V,
    3. Newman NJ,
    4. Hunter SB, et al

    . Diffusion weighted imaging in radiation necrosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003;74:382–84 doi:10.1136/jnnp.74.3.382 pmid:12588935

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    2. Weybright P,
    3. Sundgren PC,
    4. Maly P, et al

    . Differentiation between brain tumor recurrence and radiation injury using MR spectroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:1471–76 doi:10.2214/AJR.04.0933 pmid:16304000

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    2. Smith EA,
    3. Carlos RC,
    4. Junck LR, et al

    . Developing a clinical decision model: MR spectroscopy to differentiate between recurrent tumor and radiation change in patients with new contrast-enhancing lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:W45–52 doi:10.2214/AJR.07.3934 pmid:19155380

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    2. Mahrholdt H

    . Delayed enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of non-ischaemic cardiomyopathies. Eur Heart J 2005;26:1461–74 doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehi258 pmid:15831557

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    2. Zach L,
    3. Guez D,
    4. Last D, et al

    . Delayed contrast extravasation MRI: a new paradigm in neuro-oncology. Neuro Oncol 2015;17:457–65 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nou230 pmid:25452395

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Zach L,
    3. Guez D,
    4. Last D, et al

    . Delayed contrast extravasation MRI for depicting tumor and non-tumoral tissues in primary and metastatic brain tumors. PLoS One 2012;7:e52008 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052008 pmid:23251672

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Wong CS,
    3. Van der Kogel AJ

    . Mechanisms of radiation injury to the central nervous system: implications for neuroprotection. Mol Interv 2004;4:273–84 doi:10.1124/mi.4.5.7 pmid:15471910

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    2. Chamberlain MC,
    3. Glantz MJ,
    4. Chalmers L, et al

    . Early necrosis following concurrent Temodar and radiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 2007;82:81–83 doi:10.1007/s11060-006-9241-y pmid:16944309

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Wang HZ,
    3. Riederer SJ,
    4. Lee JN

    . Optimizing the precision in T1 relaxation estimation using limited flip angles. Magn Reson Med 1987;5:399–416 doi:10.1002/mrm.1910050502 pmid:3431401

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    2. Yarnykh VL

    . Actual flip-angle imaging in the pulsed steady state: a method for rapid three-dimensional mapping of the transmitted radiofrequency field. Magn Reson Med 2007;57:192–200 doi:10.1002/mrm.21120 pmid:17191242

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Andrews DW,
    3. Scott CB,
    4. Sperduto PW, et al

    . Whole brain radiation therapy with or without stereotactic radiosurgery boost for patients with one to three brain metastases: phase III results of the RTOG 9508 randomised trial. Lancet 2004;363:1665–72 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16250-8 pmid:15158627

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    2. Wagner S,
    3. Gufler H,
    4. Eichner G, et al

    . Characterisation of lesions after stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases: impact of delayed contrast magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2017;29:143–50 doi:10.1016/j.clon.2016.09.021 pmid:27777145

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    2. Aronen HJ,
    3. Gazit IE,
    4. Louis DN, et al

    . Cerebral blood volume maps of gliomas: comparison with tumor grade and histologic findings. Radiology 1994;191:41–51 doi:10.1148/radiology.191.1.8134596 pmid:8134596

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    2. Cha S,
    3. Johnson G,
    4. Wadghiri YZ, et al

    . Dynamic, contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI in mouse gliomas: correlation with histopathology. Magn Reson Med 2003;49:848–55 doi:10.1002/mrm.10446 pmid:12704767

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    2. Hompland T,
    3. Gulliksrud K,
    4. Ellingsen C, et al

    . Assessment of the interstitial fluid pressure of tumors by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with contrast agents of different molecular weights. Acta Oncol 2013;52:627–35 doi:10.3109/0284186X.2012.737931 pmid:23126523

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Watling CJ,
    3. Lee DH,
    4. Macdonald DR, et al

    . Corticosteroid-induced magnetic resonance imaging changes in patients with recurrent malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 1994;12:1886–89 doi:10.1200/JCO.1994.12.9.1886 pmid:8083712

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
32. 32.↵
    2. Lüdeman L,
    3. Grieger W,
    4. Wurm R, et al

    . Glioma assessment using quantitative blood volume maps generated by T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a receiver operating characteristic study. Acta Radiol 2006;47:303–10 doi:10.1080/02841850500539033 pmid:16613313

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Lüdeman L,
    3. Grieger W,
    4. Wurm R, et al

    . Quantitative measurement of leakage volume and permeability in gliomas, meningiomas and brain metastases with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 2005;23:833–41 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2005.06.007 pmid:16275421

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Mathews VP,
    3. Caldemeyer KS,
    4. Ulmer JL, et al

    . Effects of contrast dose, delayed imaging, and magnetization transfer saturation on gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging of brain lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7:14–22 doi:10.1002/jmri.1880070104 pmid:9039589

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    2. Schörner W,
    3. Laniado M,
    4. Niendorf HP, et al

    . Time-dependent changes in image contrast in brain tumors after gadolinium-DTPA. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1986;7:1013–20 pmid:3098065

    Abstract/FREE Full Text